| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2002 : 18:27:42
|
You bring up two very good points Newt. I've heard that there is enough oil in ANWR to replace the oil we get from the middle east for more than 30 years. But for some reason the same people who want to hem and haw about our dempendence on foreign oil also refuse to let us exploit resource in the vast wilderness of the arctic. My dad is in the Oil business (he's a mud engineer, he doen't own the oil) and he pointed out to me that it's perfectly OK to drill in Louisiana and Texas within half a mile of an elementary school full of children, but the Democrats voted to keep us from drilling in a frozen wasteland that is a thousand miles from the nearest school or village. Someone please explain to me the logic in that.
Your second point about welfare is a good one as well. 100 years ago when a family was down on their luck the local church took up a collection and delivered it to the family. The family was greatful and humbled. Today we've taken away the humility involved in revieving charity and we now call it an entitlement. That is where we went wrong. We have created an entire generation or 2 or 3 that believe that they are entitled to welfare and food stamps and even have the nerve to complain that it isn't enough and feel no shame for depending on it. Until this changes we will have a permanent dependent class who does nothing be leach off of society.
Another point that was brought up, the Iraq issue. People are trying to seperate this issue from the war on terror issue. They are not seperate, they are one and the same. If this mad man manages to put together a suitcase nuke, do you think he will have any qualms about selling it to the highest bidder, especially if that bidder expresses an interest in using it against the US? I don't believe that this is an war for oil as many conspiracy theorists have suggested (I'm not refering to anyone here). But if it ever came down to it, we have to face it, petroleum is the life blood of our economy and until someone perfects the $1000 fuel cell with a 10 year life span that will power a Chevy Suburban from 0-60 in 5 seconds and pull a house, we will need oil to keep us afloat. If we had to choose between reverting to a third world economy or fighting it out with Sadam for some oil, I think we would choose the oil. But I digress, Sadam is on the nuclear yellow brick road and we must stop him before he finds the wizzard.
|
Edited by - KileAnderson on 12/03/2002 18:30:53 |
 |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 19:07:09
|
And Kile my friend, what should the US do about the newest and even more grave nuclear threat from North Korea?
Should the Bush foreign policy relating to nuclear weapons in the hands of tyrants be consistently and equally applied in North Korea as well as Iraq? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 19:10:01
|
| The policy is a little different when the power already has nukes as North Korea claims. If we wait for Sadam to complete his weapons program it may be too late. North Korea is a little more stable and Russia and China are already pressuring them to give up their nukes. Remember, it wasn't a bunch of Korean extremeists who committed the atrocities on 9/11/2001. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 19:26:16
|
So Kile, just to be clear on your position, are you saying the Bush foreign policy should be consistently applied or not?
Which way is it?
Consistent or inconsistent?
After all, what is it that Bush says: "You're either with us or you're against us"? And a cursory review of history proves conclusively that North Korea has never been 'with us'.
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 19:53:57
|
| That's right, but you don't want to invade a country that already has nukes because you don't want them to use them on you. Right now we are pretty sure Iraq doesn't have them but is trying to get them so we need to make sure he doesn't. We are pretty sure Korea has them, despite what our nobel prize winner Jimmy Carter would like us to believe, so we have to treat them differently. There is a different tool for everyjob. Believe it or not, conservatives have more than one play in the play book. I think GW will continue to suprise everyone just as he has done in the past. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 19:59:55
|
Kile you are evading the question posed.
Ok which is it: Should the Bush foreign policy on nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue terroist states be consistent or inconsistent?
Please explain why or why not. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 20:35:36
|
| North Korea is more stable and safer then Iraq, well doesn't that comment make the cat spit in the dog food. As for ask Clayton, I beieve that there is as mux=ch or more recovable oil in the Alberta Tar sands as in the middle east. and we don't have to dloat it half way around the world in rusty librian tankers. If we cann't pursue them to share they would be a lot easier to invade. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 20:39:01
|
| as for oil sorry for the spelling my keyboard screwed up again |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 21:13:27
|
| I'm not evading the question Jim. Why do you insist that everything be treated exactly the same way? Once again you are comparing two similar situations as if they are identical, which they are not. So far we have not been attacked and as far as I know we are not being threatened by asian terrorists. Arab terrorists, or I should say Islamic extremeists are the problem right now and Iraq is at the epicenter of this right now. Why don't we treat China the same way? They have nukes too, what about India? Do you treat every hail claim exactly the same way? Do you have a standard flood estimate that you use for every flood claim? The last flood claim was $20,000 so from now on I'll just send $20,000 to every flood claim. Yeah, that makes sense. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 21:57:39
|
So Kile, I gather what you are saying is this: that the Bush foreign policy approach should treat 'different' weapons of mass destruction threats from 'different' terrorist/rogue states 'differently'? Simple one word answer is all that is required: YES or NO.
My question had nothing to do with hail claims. This is a political discussion isn't it? You didn't mention hail claims in your response to Newt, so I didn't take it as needing to talk about adjusting. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 22:19:27
|
Kile, tell you what: in candor, the question I posed to you was too simple to ever expect you to be able to answer with a simple YES or NO.
Why don't we make this much easier, and have you tell us, in your own words, what the Bush foreign policy ('conservative' position) IS with regard to terrorist/rogue states ('those who are "against" us') who possess and supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?
I smell a 'debate' coming if I can only pin Kile down to proffering a 'proposition' with which to 'debate'.
Damn Ghostbuster you are noticeably quiet? |
Edited by - JimF on 12/03/2002 22:36:30 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2002 : 23:58:09
|
| Jim, are you not reading what I wrote in my above replies? I'll make it simple for you, YES, KILE THINK PRESIDENT NEED TREAT EACH OF TWO COUNTRIES DIFFERENT. Was that simple enough? Did anyone else have a problem understanding what I wrote before? Jim seems to not be able to grasp analogies. Jim, did you even take the SAT? You don't need to treat each country identically to consistently apply foreign policy. You don't fight a desert campaign in a jungle. The two situations are different. Just because the administration handles them differently does not mean that there is any inconsistancy in foreign policy. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 12/04/2002 00:03:08 |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 00:55:56
|
Here is an interesting story that supports some of Jim’s points on debating. How the father changes the subject (at least in the mind of the daughter) so to get her to start thinking instead of talking is interesting. It really drives home how after one (even that considers herself a very liberal Democrat) has worked hard for something that they do not like to just hand it to even a friend that did not earn it. Perhaps it is facts that we must work hard and earn something before we are against the free lunch for able bodied that choose to play instead of work so they can eat. Here is the story that came by email from my accountant today.
One time there was a young teenage girl that was about to finish
her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal
Democrat and her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his
opposition to programs like welfare. He stopped her and asked her
how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA,
but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time
to go out and party and often went sleepless because all of the studying.
She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college
friends because of all her studying.
He then asked how her friend Mary, that was attending the same
college, was doing. She replied that she was barely getting by. She
had a 2.0 GPA, never studied. Was very popular on campus and was
at parties all the time. She often wouldn't show up for classes because
she was hung over.
He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office
and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend
that only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
She fired back and said "that wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for
mine and my friend has done nothing".
After a moment of silence, she replied, "I guess I will never vote Democratic again".
|
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 07:19:59
|
| Gale........Nicely done.....crystal clear...... |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 07:55:46
|
| Gale.....nice cliche. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Partisan Politics
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
